---ESPN's Bruce Feldman ($) documents first hand the stodgy, fearful nature that takes over many an SEC game.

I kept on thinking "OK, now comes the part where Auburn takes over." But it never came. Not when Ole Miss was relying on a walk-on true freshman fullback named Andy Hartman or playing a converted third-string true freshman guard Daverin Geralds on the defensive line. For the whole game Ole Miss played just 13 men on its patchwork defense that starts 255-pound true freshman Marcus Tillman, a converted DE at defensive tackle. Still, Auburn didn't really attack. In the second half all its runs were tosses, stretch plays and things designed to run wide.

I'm sure Tiger coach Tommy Tuberville cringed every time he glanced up at the scoreboard. So did his players. It wouldn't take a football genius to know that the longer Auburn struggled with the Rebels the more they pressed. Tiger QB Brandon Cox was almost perfect connecting with open receivers and the Auburn o-line had no trouble with the Rebels pass rush but the game just never broke open.

Auburn didn't attack, even though Brandon Cox was having a great game and Ole Miss clearly didn't have the numbers on defense to hold up against Auburn if the Tigers just kept pushing with their offense.

Unfortunately, Bruce drew a strange conclusion about Auburn's performance against a wounded foe:

Auburn in the end did make just enough plays although that probably won't endear them much to the pollsters trying to sort out a sea of one-loss teams. Give them credit though because great teams find a way to win games like this.

So... they failed to take a shot at putting Ole Miss away, giving themselves no choice BUT to play a close game that they'd have to tough out, and then they're given credit for such silliness?  Bruce is a great guy but his conclusions here are bad.

Great teams find ways to win close games when they're having bad days, sure.  But great teams also cleanly put away undermanned foes, especially when their offense is having some success.  Auburn dicked around, and pollsters should rightly ding them for it if that's their imperative.  Killer instinct, either you got it or you don't and right now the Tigers just don't have it (other than the second half performance at home against Florida).

---Slate's Bryan Curtis, writing at the New York Times, takes a look into the world of the mega internet sites that cover schools and their recruiting as well as their message boards (H/T: Bruce Feldman, who is quoted in the story and is writing a book about recruiting).

Good stuff.  I absolutely love a lot of the content made available by Rivals and Scout.  People mock the whole recruiting thing, but it's interesting--and providing items like recruit videos for perusal is quite a perk to anticipating say, what freshman players will make an impact this year.

I know several people who either manage some of those sites or are beat or recruiting writers, and I feel they do a good job handling the ethical issues involved in doing their jobs.  In reading those sites over the years it's clear not every one does the right thing, but a great many write fairly and aren't out to unfairly influence the recruits they visit with and call.

The upcoming battle for the Rivals.com and Scout.com (and others) affiliates is journalistic access.  Some schools outright credential the sites, while other sites are completely frozen out, with many inbetween.  Or they may be allowed to talk to players after practice but can't be in the press box during games or aren't allowed access to practice.  Eventually the inconsistencies are going to look frivolous, but for the time being that's how things are.

Part of that's because we're in this ongoing thing where the new media is rubbing shoulders with the more established, traditional sports media and there's some friction over competency, accountability, and a certain mix of jealousy and animosity.  So you end up having say, the beat guys getting squeezed by the internet guys for scoop, while the internet guys are fighting for things like (public) access to the coaches and players, the internet guys would like to be more recognized and make more money, the media guys fear losing their jobs or having their pay threatened (many writers have to supplement their income by writing books etc.).

There's just all of this going on and it's unclear how it will all be resolved.  Quite interesting.

Oh, and that's not even getting into the whole blogs thing, heh. 

---ESPN's Ivan Maisel gets a fun insider's perspective of a typical Sunday with the Tennessee coaching staff.

7:35 p.m.: The offensive and defensive staffs begin breaking down South Carolina tape.

The offense watches South Carolina against Auburn (a team the Gamecocks nearly upset), Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Code puts up a poster-sized computer printout with the pictures and basic information on the Gamecocks' defense.

"Six freshmen on the two-deep," Cutcliffe announces.

---ESPN's Pat Forde details Mississippi State's views on coach Sylvester Croom, from the school president to the athletic director to the fans.

"The question is, can you build a championship program in the state of Mississippi without cheating?" Croom said. "That's the large question. A lot of people, even some of our fans, don't think we can.

"I guess I didn't realize how much that mentality -- whether we could win here by adhering to the rules -- was embedded with some people. But we know that way can't work. We know it doesn't work.

"I think the vast majority of our fans have been very supportive of that, but it has surprised me sometimes. It's almost as if some of them forgot probation happened and we're supposed to be dominating the conference already."

Everyone admires Croom, obviously.  He'd really help himself if he were more innovative on offense or defense.  They're playing the same brand of ball as half the SEC but with about half the talent, that's just not a winning formula.

---ESPN's Bill Curry goes to bat for UCLA's Karl Dorrell and several other coaches (Bill Callahan-Nebraska, Tyrone Willingham-Washington and Mike Shula-Alabama) in an article titled "Lengendary Programs on Verge of Revival".

If you're of a certain age and watched Sesame Street as a kid, you'll remember a segment where the screen was divided into four sections.  In each section there would be a picture or an object, but one of the four panels always stood out.  The goal was for children to discern patterns and make distinctions, with the show asking "which one of these is not like the other?"

If you're talking about 'Legenary (football) Programs' and naming Alabama, Nebraska, Washington and UCLA, I ask you dear reader, which one of these is not like the other?

---Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel found a diplomatic way to knock down one of the silly emails a reader sent to him.

Here's a theory of mine I'd like you to weigh in on: I think teams from conferences that don't play title games should be penalized in the BCS rankings. USC and Ohio State, to name the most obvious examples, don't have to, while teams from the SEC, Big 12 and ACC do. Conference championship games give teams one more chance to knock themselves out of contention for the national championship.
-- Jeff, Baltimore

I don't disagree with the last statement, but I think you're forgetting one important thing: No one put a gun to those conferences' heads and told them they had to hold a championship game. They knew full well what they were getting into. So why should we penalize the other conferences for not doing the same thing? Also, keep in mind that in the Big East and Pac-10 (not the Big Ten), the teams all play each other during the regular season, whereas in the SEC, it's possible for the best team in the East to go the entire season without playing the best team in the West (as would be the case if Arkansas and Florida won their divisions this season). So while it's true the game creates another opportunity to lose, you could also argue that they avoided another such opportunity during the regular season.

An appearance in a championship game by contending teams in these conferences is often cynically used to either justify a more difficult schedule (after having put three weak sisters in their opening handful of games) or complain away a late season loss.  Those schools made their beds by standing behind their conferences as they created these money-making championship games.

You want the cash, deal with the consequences.

The championship games are a modern phenomena in the game and I'd rather we do away with them and get back to the round-robin (Pac-10) or close to it (Big Ten) scheduling efforts.  Either add more games to the schedule or reduce the sizes of the ACC, Big 12 and SEC to 10 teams so that they can all play each other within one season.

If a league becomes too tough, jettison a strong member and let them become another conference's problem (or benefit, perhaps).  Nobody's a victim, where we're at in college football is the byproduct of a series of choices over the year and where we go is also going to be dictated by the choices made by the NCAA, the conferences, the schools, the coaches, the players and all other interests.

---Mack Brown is at it again.  Don't think he has sway with the media?  While absolutely NOBODY is talking about Texas, there's this guy and Wendell Barnhouse going to bat for the 'Horns completely unsolicited.

Texas at No.3?!  Mmmmmk.

Worrying about the computers?  Nobody said anything about the computers when last year Texas began the first BCS poll at No. 1 despite ranking below No. 1 USC in all the polls that mattered.  You can't have it both ways, folks.

---The Mobile Register's Paul Finebaum is calling for (gasp!) Florida State coach Bobby Bowden to retire.

"When you retire, there is just one more big event," he [Bowden]  recently told the New York Times. "And I ain't ready for that."

No one in Florida wants to see Bowden die four weeks after his last game like Bryant. However, fewer and fewer people want to see him on the sidelines anymore, either.

It's a tough situation.

---One more from Finebaum: Auburn is the new Alabama.

I jumped into my car Saturday night and flipped on the radio and the cheap shots on Auburn came early and often.

"Auburn looked horrible today against Ole Miss," said the commentator on ESPN radio. "This team is going backward."

About 20 minutes later, at a gas station, a guy yelled at me with the same message.

"What's wrong with Auburn? They haven't shown me anything."

I shook my head and tried to compute the information. Didn't Auburn win on the road in the SEC earlier in the day? Aren't they ranked No. 6 in the BCS standings?

Nobody bothered to mention that Alabama had trailed what is arguably the worst football team in America and led only 10-3 at halftime (it's a good thing Florida International suspended 18 players or that score might have been reversed). Nobody uttered a word about Mike Shula having to put back in a hobbled starting quarterback (with no reliable backup) in the second half to seal the deal. And it finally dawned on me what was going on here.

Auburn is the new Alabama.

This is just short of amazing.  Alabama will rise again, but Auburn being the king of the state is almost unthinkable even now.

***
To read articles and blog entries from many other college football writers, be sure and visit CFR's "The Punditry" links.  You can either bookmark that link or find it via CFR's College Football Links section on the menu at left.